Why did the arquebus and later firearms become so widespread? They had lower rate of fire, less range and were horribly inaccurate compare to bows.
Also why didn't they re-introduce the bow during later eras when most armor had been dropped by infantry?
>>884517
Because they had a lot more penetrating power. Especially by the early to mid 15th century, armor existed that was basically impervious even to point blank fire from longbows, and if you had a 1000ish pound draw crossbow, you could maybe kill someone at close range, maybe not.
Guns became prevalent because when they hit people, they could actually kill them. And even "accurate" bows had relatively shitty ranges and lethalities. The overwhelming bulk of casualties in pretty much every medieval battle were done hand to hand (usually while chasing down fleeing people)
>Also why didn't they re-introduce the bow during later eras when most armor had been dropped by infantry?
Because by then guns had advanced still further, and were definitely ahead in things like accuracy and range. Not to mention the pool of people with skillsets of bow use had pretty much dried up.
>>884517
STOPPING POWER
What's interesting about this is that in Asia fire arms weren't used as much as in europe due to early fire arms being much less effective than mounted archers
>>884517
They were flat out devastating. The same number of bows or even crossbows couldn't dish out the all-stopping carnage that a firearm volley could, especially against well armored and/or fast moving cavalry.
Also, the gun became widespread in the countryside as it was a far better hunting weapon thanks to its power adequate range, and ease of handling. So when war time rolled around, recruiters found there were hundreds if not thousands of able bodied hunters armed with guns on hand, so why bother paying to train and maintain a dated weapon like the bow?
>>884562
wat. Not all of Asia is the open Mongolian steppe, and horse archers aren't an auto-win. Try "mounted archer"-ing from a fortress during a seige. The great weakness of mounted archers is that they can kill infantry or heavy cavalry, but other than through attrition can't dislodge them. They are good for skirmishing but can't TAKE and HOLD ground (in fact they rely on retreating off of that very ground you're trying to keep).
And a recurve bow may have greater accuracy and rate of fire than a arquebus or musket but it sure as shit doesn't have more stopping power or armor penetration than a ~.60cal musket ball.
The real answer is that Europe developed firearms further due to being more involved in seige and infantry "I WILL take/hold this shitty little patch of dirt for bullshit dynastic reasons" warfare than the Chinese, whose army was mostly for fighting peasant skirmishers or barbarians on the frontier, and against whom the greater killing power per shot of the firearms was less effective because they would just do their horse archer (/infantry skirmisher) thing and avoid volley type warfare, and so firearms were just another tool in the kit, and therefore never got developed to the point where they could actually displace bows in terms of range and accuracy, if not rate of fire.
>>884517
Developing the muscle and knowledge to use and maintain a bow takes a soldier's lifetime, and would have a hard time penetrating the armor of the time. Learning how to use an arquebus or musket takes like two weeks, although discipline more, and it can potentially punch through both plate and mail.
Firearm is a force multiplier for the weak cuck. A child can operate one. While horse archery required dedication and discipline. That is why cuck Americans love their firearms. Without it, they are totally exposed for who they really are.
>>884758
For the fur trade, hunters preferred bows and even hired natives because gunshots ruined the fur.
>>885040
Please, tell us more, o foreign ubermensch. Remember kids, only cucks use weapons in a war - real men punch their enemies to death. And Mr. "dedication and discipline" here probably ties one hand behind his back just to prove his strength.
Dude, horse archers used bows because it was the most appropriate weapon for their activities. If there had been an "easier" weapon that gave the same advantages (like pistols, as they developed) they used that instead.
I'm honestly not sure if I'm just replying to bait at this point. Somebody help me out here.
>>885040
As I said above, what about situations where "muh horse archery" isn't effective or applicable?
>>885064
Without guns, Europeans were mostly sick, malnutritioned, cuck-peasants cornered into the dark, muddy, shithole that is Europe, from which everyone was desperate to gtfo.
>>884517
Penetrating power, stopping power, ease of use and range.
Bows were used until 19th century in some parts of the world(and there was that crazy british commando who killed some German with a bow back in 1940) and the very visible proof that they were seen as a danger was that in the same parts of the world mail was used until that point.
Generally though, guns were more effective in modern European warfare where armies grew to several-tens-of thousands rather than being up to dozen thousands big so supplying the army with big enough amount of archers to matter was too expensive and crossbows were generally inferior to guns in everything but accuracy at low ranges.
>>885089
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
Let's pick 1500, okay?
Top GDP/capita regions/countries:
>Italy
>Belgium
>Netherlands
>Denmark
>France
>UK(as a region)
>Austria
>Sweden
>Germany
>Spain
>Switzerland
>Norway
>Portugal
and finally, the first non-european nation:
>China
>>884562
>>884796
>What's interesting about this is that in Asia fire arms weren't used as much as in europe due to early fire arms being much less effective than mounted archers
For mounted combat
>than the Chinese, whose army was mostly for fighting peasant skirmishers or barbarians on the frontier, and against whom the greater killing power per shot of the firearms was less effective because they would just do their horse archer (/infantry skirmisher) thing and avoid volley type warfare
Plainly wrong.
In Asia had shitloads of Musketeers. Just organized around pike & shot formations or, heck, even 0 pikes at all since the formation was bristling with missile weapons. Archers would be lumped with Musketeers for example. Let's not forget that muskets outfuckingranged the nomad bow.
Furthermore in 1600's-1700's Steppe Warfare (among the Chinese, Russians, and Persians that is) the infantry and its provided the anchor of a Qing/Safavid Army on the field. They provided valuable covering fire for their own cavalrymen returning to rearm/withdraw. Nomads never can top that since 0 infantry or shit infantry to begin with.
Pic related. Qing horse archers up front. Muskets at back.
There's a reason why Nomads never recovered from the 1700's. Dzungaria was the last great nomad power before Central Asia was torn apart by Russians and the Qingz.
>>885089
Holy shit you should never become a fisherman because this bait is SHIT.
>>885108
>Let's pick 1500, okay?
Not sure how that's an argument against European poverty pre-gunpowder.
>>884517
>less range and were horribly inaccurate compare to bows
No this is a common misconception. Arquebus had farther range than bows and were just as accurate, the misconception for the former comes from the fact that arquebus volleys were conducted at a shorter range than bows to maximize effects.
Have you faggots actually used a bow before? Do you know how much strength and practice you need to get good to accurately hit anything beyond 30-40 feet? Multiple times?
Even early shit tier guns were a godsend to any professional army, much less a largely untrained peasant force.
>>885245
>Have you faggots actually used a bow before? Do you know how much strength and practice you need to get good to accurately hit anything beyond 30-40 feet? Multiple times?
About half a month to half a year depending on your previous level of fitness.
>>885255
With an actual medieval style bow and not a fibreglass and gears modern contraption?
Here's a great place to start OP and any other anons lurking in this thread. Great collection of essays.
>>885267
Yes. Learning to use a war bow doesn't actually take as long as is claimed by longbow myths. The time it took to train a soldier of comparable skill in a bow, a crossbow, a javelin, a sling, or a gun did not differ all that much.
>>885298
And you have done this, with a full power, 80-130lb bow, from zero, in six months?
>>884517
>Also why didn't they re-introduce the bow during later eras when most armor had been dropped by infantry?
Bows take more training, for strength of the draw, accuracy and endurance.
Also, a musket ball is a nasty thing. They shatter bone, and leave big holes when they pass through the body and mushroom.
>>885298
This. Archery is my hobby. The time it takes to become decent is exaggerated. Honestly, in one afternoon you'll be able use a bow to hit a general area. In a few months you'll be a decent shot.
That said, guns are still much quicker to train and use and be competent with.
But you could still levy some peasants and having them shooting well with bows after 4 months training, but most of that training would be on archery. Start them with muskets and most of the training will be on drill, formations and tactics and melee fighting, as the weapons skill is learned quickly.
While everyone in this topic is comparing this to bows it should be remembered that most places in Europe did not have long traditions of bowmen like England (though they certainly did have them).
Furthermore the introduction of gunpowder weapons helped to break up the old warrior-aristocracies and centralized power in emerging European states.
>>885302
I took about 5 months, but I was an out of shape grognard. The guy I made friends at the range took about 3 weeks but he was ex-military.
>>884517
Bows aren't that accurate, in fact late muskets were better in that regard.
>>884517
Because it take way less time to train some fag in aiming and firing.
> spend lifetime mastering archery
> die within minutes of battle
> fug
>>885040
So, real men use outdated weapons like swords and bows. Meanwhile cucks use far more advanced weaponry, slaughter the idiotic real men who refuse to use such pussy-tier weapons, then fuck all the real men's women? Seems legit.
>>885348
4 months can be an eternity in time of sudden invasion, though.
>>885040
No gun hipsters are so cringe worthy. Muh skilled warrior weapon.
>>884517
>They had lower rate of fire, less range and were horribly inaccurate compare to bows.
Anglo propaganda.
Think people on his need to go on k when they have weapon related questions. Much better info
>>885040
So is this why America is safe and Europe is "that place where terrorism happens".
>>889228
Educate me mon ami
>>884517
For one, you can penetrate a knight's armor with absolute ease with an arquebus. It is also much easier to train a man to shoot and reload an arquebus than to use a bow effectively.
>>889447
But is it a better weapon? Is a professional soldier trained with an arquebus a better combat troop than one trained with a bow?
>>885267
>>885245
Aarcher here.
Longbow sitting next to my gun safe.
Took three weeks of extensive practice with a compound to start shooting accurately.
Six months later I switched to the longbow, Transition was seamless. I ran out of land to shoot on before I ran out of skill to shoot accurately.
Archery does not require fucking Jedi levels of skill and training to do, even with shitty bows. If it did, archer would NEVER have become popular among hunter-gatherers, and throwing thongs or the atl-atl would reign supreme.
>>885302
Shooting a bow is mostly in your back and fingers. If you're physically active it doesn't take much to shoot a relativwly havy bow.;
I was able to shoot a 55lb bow as a 110lb teenager with no strain.
>>889112
4 months is really for modern people who don't do hard labor. A Medieval farmer would already be physically fit and strong before he picked up a bow, so like others have said it'd only take a few days or few weeks to git gud.
In any case, the training part is moot for late Medieval and Renaissance warfare. Mass levies of conscripts trained for war only comes about around the 18th century, and before that soldiers were either professional mercenaries, amateur adventurers, or semi-professional reserve forces, both of whom would already be well trained from practice and experience in whatever weapon they bring with them to battle.
>>889222
>Feeling all safe and warm in my suit of armor
>Chugged 5L of water thankfully my murder boner is keeping the piss in
>Just finishing hacking some illiterate farmer's boy to pieces, probably no older than 17 and only wanted to go home and be with his future wife
>If all goes well the sires and I are going to rape every single woman in his village.
>Sudden feeling of being hit by a warhammer in the stomach
>Die horribly
>>889256
>America is safe
lol
>>884517
They required less training, and more reliance of large supply lines.
That means fewer rebellions.
![mrsinking700[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9VEq7Hz.jpg "mrsinking700[1].jpg")
This is a battle that happened a few days after the sinking of the Mary Rose between French soldiers, led by Blaize de Montluc, the author of this passage, and English archers:
Being return’d to the Fort of Outreau; there was hardly a day past that the English did not come to tickle us upon the descent towards the Sea, and would commonly brave our people up to our very Canon, which was within ten or twelve paces of the Fort: and we were all abus’d by what we had heard our Predecessors say, that one English man would always beat two French men, and that the English would never run away, nor never yield. I had retain’d something of the Camisado of Bullen, and of the business of Oye; and therefore said one day to Mousieur de Tais, that I would discover to him the mystery of the English, and wherefore they were reputed so hardy: which was, that they all carried arms of little reach, and therefore were necessitated to come up close to us to loose their arrows, which otherwise would do no execution; whereas we who were accustomed to fire our Harquebuzes at a great distance, seeing the Enemy use another manner of sight, thought these near approaches of theirs very strange, imputing their running on at this confident rate to absolute bravery: but I will lay them an Ambuscado, and then you shall see if I am in the right or no, and whether a Gascon be not as good as an English-man. In antient time their Fathers and ours were neighbours.
1/3
![_67890203_promo_464_nocredit[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YePrrKh.jpg "_67890203_promo_464_nocredit[1].jpg")
I then chose out sixscore men, Harquebuzeers and Pikes, with some Halberts amongst them, and lodg’d them in a hollow which the water had made, lying below on the right hand of the Fort, and sent Captain Chaux at the time when it was low water, straight to some little houses which were upon the Banks of the River almost over against the Town to skirmish with them, with instructions that so soon as he should see them pass the River, he should begin to retire, and give them leave to make a charge. Which he accordingly did: but it fortun’d so, that he was wounded in one of his arms with a Hurquebuz shot, and the Soldiers took him and carried him back to the Fort, so that the skirmish remained without a head. The English were soon aware of it, and gave them a very brisk charge, driving them on fighting up to the very Canon. Seeing then our men so ill handled, I start up out of my Ambuscado sooner then I should have done, running on full drive directly up to them, commanding the Soldiers not to shoot, till they came within the distance of their arrows. They were two or three hundred men, having some Italian Harquebuzeers amongst them, which made me heartily repent that I had made my Ambuscado no stronger: but it was now past remedy, and so soon as they saw me coming towards them, they left the pursuit of the others, and came to charge upon me.
2/3
![cowdry[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YVSeadR.jpg "cowdry[1].jpg")
We marcht straight up to them, and so soon as they were come up within arrow shot, our Harquebuzeers gave their volley all at once, and then clapt their hands to their swords, as I had commanded, and we ran on to come to blows; but so soon as we came within two or three pikes length, they turn’d their backs with as great facility as any Nation that ever I saw, and we pursued them as far as the River, close by the Town, and there were four or five of our Soldiers who followed them to the other side. I then made a halt at the ruins of the little houses, where I rally’d my people to∣gether again, some of whom were left by the way behind, who were not able to run so fast as the rest. Monsieur de Tais had seen all, and was sally’d out of the Fort to relieve the Artillery, to whom so soon as I came up to him, I said, Look you, did I not tell you how it would be? We must either conclude that the English of former times were more valiant then those of this present age, or that we are better men than our forefathers. I know not which of the two it is. In good earnest, said Monsieur de Tais, these people retreat in very great haste. I shall never again have so good an opinion of the English, as I have had heretofore. No Sir, said I, you must know that the English who antiently us’d to beat the French, were half Gascons, for they married into Gascony, and so bred good Soldiers: but now that race is worn out, and they are no more the same men they were.
From that time forwards our people had no more the same opinion, nor the same fear of the English, that before.
>>892477
This is how you post, fellas.
![8353862_f260[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0fvEZxg.jpg "8353862_f260[1].jpg")
Here's a battle between John Smith and Powhatans:
This gave us cause to provide for the worst. Farre we went not ere seaven or eight Canowes full of men armed appeared following us, staying to see the conclusion. Presently from each side the river came arrowes so fast as two or three hundred could shoot them, whereat we returned to get the open. They in the Canowes let fly also as fast, but amongst them we bestowed so many shot, the most of them leaped overboard and swam ashore, but two or three escaped by rowing, being against their playnes: our Muskets they found shot further then their Bowes, for wee made not twentie shot ere they all retyred behind the next trees. Being thus got out of their trap, we seised on all their Canowes, and moored them in the midst of the open. More then an hundred arrowes stucke in our Targets, and about the boat, yet none hurt, onely Anthony Bagnall was shot in his Hat, and another in his sleeve.
>>884517
I haven't even read the thread yet but
>1. Easier to use, bows take years to get good with, a peasant can figure out a Musket in minutes.
>2. Scary, guns are loud and bright and they freak people and horses (especially those that around a quaint ed with them) the fuck out
>3. Easier to mass produce, materials can be of much lower quality
>4. Armor penetration
And they were all around better as skirmish in weapons due to their trajectory, range, and quickness
>>892600
>3. Easier to mass produce, materials can be of much lower quality
I don't know how you'd measure this other than by price. While bows were cheap, firearms were expensive. A good yew-wood bow and a set of arrows each ‘a clothyard long and fletched with the wing of a grey goose’, was significantly cheaper than a harquebus. According to the historian C. G. Cruickshank, in 1566 a high quality bow of imported yew cost 6 shillings and 8 pence, a bow of second quality was 3 shillings and 4 pence, while a bows of English yew cost a mere 2 shillings. During the latter part of the Queen’s reign, calivers ranged from 12 to 30 shillings and muskets from 18 shillings to £2. With the average cost of a bow being 3 shillings, and a firearm 30 shillings (not including all the associated items that went with musketry), then the cost of refitting a company with gunpowder weapons was very considerable indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1oWUjS3UQ
Check out this video. Now imagine how long it would take to train an average person to hit that target with an 80 to 150# war bow.
>>890187
yeah
>>884517
>less range and were horribly inaccurate compare to bows.
You're an idiot of a caliber i cannot imagine.I bet you think people decide what weapons based on "stats" and which one does "more damage"
You should be banned for making such stupid assertions, we've had these threads before too
>>892881
>indian shit
>no fork
>modern trigger
0/10 at least he used patchings
>>894201
Wtf do u think this board is for faggot??? To discuss n educate n shit
>>894307
To shitpost.
>>894201
>less range and were horribly inaccurate compare to bows.
This myth has been conventional wisdom among even established historians for the last hundred years, and it's only very very recently changing, so it's not unreasonable for OP to believe it.
Does anyone know why the New Model Army painted their cartridges blue?
Was it for appearance, or was it a safety thing, so you'd notice it and keep it away from water and fire?
>>884517
Actually they started to become quite accurate with the development of the matchlock arquebus, we're talking like 10 20 yards difference in accuracy when trying to pick off a man sized target.
>>896447
I'm 90% sure it was for looks only. Painting things different colors for safety isn't a thing in those times. However I'll admit that I'm better read on Elizabethan military training than ECW and could be wrong.
>>885064
Don't worry, he probably cried like a bitch over this swordsman who spent his life, honing his sword skills through discipline, only to be taken down by a single American with a single shot from a revolver, on a whim.
